> 1.4 seconds for the search, 4.5ms for the pull of the full details..
> So no -- that may not scale that well. We would have to test it out.
There are also other items that can be done, like keeping the tables
per month. And allow searching based on the month. If they want to
search the entire archives I think it is pretty much a safe bet that
it will take time.
Of course, we can always use the Google API as well.
Joshua D. Drake
> Joshua D. Drake
> Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
> Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
> +1-503-667-4564 - jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
> PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Command Prompt, Inc., home of PostgreSQL Replication, and plPHP.
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL
Description: text/x-vcard (640 bytes)
In response to
pgsql-www by date
|Next:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2004-10-19 17:52:56|
|Subject: Re: mailing list offer|
|Previous:||From: Devrim GUNDUZ||Date: 2004-10-19 13:45:41|
|Subject: Re: freshmeat entry|